Presidential debate watching, issue knowledge, character evaluation, and vote choice

Human Communication Research

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 121-144

  Benoit, William L ^a   Hansen, Glenn J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 4043125405     PISSN: 03603989     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/hcr/30.1.121     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Abramowitz, A. I. (1978). The impact of a presidential debate on voter rationality. American Journal of Political Science, 22, 680-690.
2. Auer, J. J. (1962). The counterfeit debates. In S. Kraus (Ed.), The great debates: Background, perspective, effects (pp. 142-150). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
3. Becker, L. B., Sobowale, I. A., Cobbey, R. E., & Eyal, C. H. (1978). Debates' effects on voters' understanding of candidates and issues. In G. R Bishop, R. G. Meadow, & M. Jackson-Beeck (Eds.), The presidential debates: Media, electoral, and policy perspectives (pp. 126-139). New York: Praeger.
4. Benoit, W. L. (1999). Seeing spots: A functional analysis of presidential television advertisements from 1952-1996. New York: Praeger.
5. Benoit, W. L., Blaney, J. R., & Pier, P. M. (1998). Campaign '96: A functional analysis of acclaiming, attacking, and defending. New York: Praeger.
6. Benoit, W. L., Hansen, G. J., & Holbert, R. L. (2002). Campaign information sources and issue knowledge and salience in the 2000 presidential election. New Orelans, LA: National Communication Association.
7. Benoit, W. L., & Harthcock, A. (1999). Functions of the Great Debates: Acclaims, attacks, and defense in the 1960 presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 66, 341-357.
8. Benoit, W. L., McHale, J. P, Hansen, G. J., Pier, P. M., & McGuire, J. P. (2002). Campaign 2000: A functional analysis of presidential campaign discourse. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
9. Benoit, W. L., McKinney, M. S., & Holbert, R. L. (2001). Beyond learning and persona: Extending the scope of presidential debate effects. Communication Monographs, 68, 259-273.
10. Benoit, W. L., Pier, P. M., Brazeal, L. M., McHale, J. P., Klyukovksi, A., & Airne, D. (2002). The primary decision: A functional analysis of debates in presidential primaries. Westport, CT: Praeger.
11. Benoit, W. L., Webber, D., & Berman, J. (1998). Effects of presidential debate watching and ideology on attitudes and knowledge. Argumentation and Advocacy, 34, 163-172.
12. Benoit, W. L., & Wells, W. T. (1996). Candidates in conflict: Persuasive attack and defense in the 1992 presidential debates. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
13. Bishop, G. P., Oldendick, R., & Tuchfarber, A. (1978). Debate watching and the acquisition of political knowledge. Journal of Communication, 28, 99-113.
14. Brians, C. L., & Wattenberg, M. P. (1996). Campaign issue knowledge and salience: Comparing reception from TV commercials, TV news, and newspapers. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 172-193.
15. Carlin, D. P. (1994). A rationale for a focus group study. In D. B. Carlin & M. S. McKinney (Eds.), The 1992 presidential debates in focus (pp. 3-19). Westport, CT: Praeger.
16. Chaffee, S. H. (1978). Presidential debates: Are they helpful to voters? Communication Monographs, 45, 330-346.
17. Concordance. (2003). http://www.rjcw.freeserve.co.uk. Accessed 3/16/03.
18. Dearing, J. W., & Rogers, E. M. (1996). Agenda-setting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19. Drew, D., & Weaver, D. (1991). Voter learning in the 1988 presidential election: Did the debates and the media matter? Journalism Quarterly, 68, 27-37.
20. Drew, D., & Weaver, D. (1998). Voter learning in the 1996 presidential election: Did the media matter? Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 75, 292-301.
21. nd ed., pp. 235-259). Westport, CT: Praeger.
22. Gallup Poll. (1999, April 9). Independents rank as largest U.S. political group. Retrieved June 20, 2001, from http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/ pr990409c.asp.
23. Graber, D. A. (1978). Problems in measuring audience effects of the 1976 debates. In G. F. Bishop, R. G. Meadow, & M. Jackson-Beeck (Eds.), The presidential debates: Media, electoral, and policy perspective (pp. 105-125). New York: Praeger.
24. Graber, D. A., & Kim, Y. Y. (1978). Why John Q. Voter did not learn much from the 1976 presidential debates. In B. D. Ruben (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 2 (pp. 407-421). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
25. Hacker, K. L., Zakahi, W. R., Giles, M. J., & McQuitty, S. (2000). Components of candidate images: Statistical analysis of the issue-persona dichotomy in the presidential campaign of 1996. Communication Monographs, 67, 227-238.
26. Hagner, P. R., & Rieselbach, L. N. (1978). The impact of presidential debates: Conversion or reinforcement. In G. F. Bishop, R. G. Meadow, & M. Jackson-Beeck (Eds.), The presidential debates: Media, electoral, and policy perspectives (pp. 157-178). New York: Praeger.
27. Hellweg, S. A., Pfau, M., & Brydon, S. R. (1992). Televised presidential debates: Advocacy in contemporary America. New York: Praeger.
28. Hotline. (2000, August 25). Viewership figures. Retrieved from http:// www.nationaljournal.com.
29. Holbert, R. L., Benoit, W. L., Hansen, G. J., & Wen, W-C. (2002). The role of communication in the formation of an issue-based citizenry. Communication Monographs, 69, 296-310.
30. Holbrook, T. M. (1996). Do campaigns matter? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31. Holbrook, T. M. (1999). Political learning from presidential debates. Political Behavior, 21, 67-89.
32. Hunter, J. E., & Hamilton, M. A. (2002). The advantage of using standardized scores in causal analysis. Human Communication Research, 28, 552-561.
33. Jamieson, K. H. (1987). Television, presidential campaigns, and debates. In J. L. Swerdlow (Ed.), Presidential debates 1988 and beyond (pp. 27-33). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
34. Jamieson, K. H., & Adasiewicz, C. (2000). What can voters learn from election debates? In S. Coleman (Ed.), Televised election debates: International perspectives (pp. 25-42). New York: St. Martin's Press.
35. Jamieson, K. H., & Birdsell, D. S. (1988). Presidential debates: The challenge of creating an informed electorate. New York: Oxford University Press.
36. Kaid, L. L., McKinney, M. S., & Tedesco, J. C. (2000). Civic dialogue in the 1996 presidential campaign: Candidate, media, and public voices. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
37. Kennamer, J. D. (1987). Debate viewing and debate discussion as predictors of campaign cognition. Journalism Quarterly, 64, 114-119.
38. Lang, K., & Lang, G. E. (1962). Reaction of viewers. In S. Kraus (Ed.), The great debates: Background, perspectives, effects (pp. 313-330). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
39. Lanoue, D. J. (1991). The "turning point" viewers' reactions to the second 1988 presidential debate. American Politics Quarterly, 19, 80-95.
40. Lanoue, D. J. (1992). One that made a difference: Cognitive consistency, political knowledge, and the 1980 presidential debate. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 168-184.
41. Lanoue, D. J., & Schrott, P. R. (1989). Voters' reaction to televised presidential debates: Measurement of the source and magnitude of opinion change. Political Psychology, 10, 275-285.
42. Lemert, J. B. (1993). Do televised presidential debates help voters? Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 37, 83-94.
43. Louden, A. (2002). Political debates bibliography. Retrieved from http://www.wfu.edu/~louden/Political%20Communication/Bibs/DEBATES.html
44. McKinnon, L. M., Tedesco, J. C., & Kaid, L. L. (1993). The third 1992 Presidential debate: Channel and commentary effects. Argumentation and Advocacy, 30, 106-118.
45. McLeod, J. M., Guo, Z., Daily, K., Steele, C. A., Huang, H., Horowitz, E., & Chen, H. (1996). The impact of traditional and nontraditional media forms in the 1992 Presidential election. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 73, 401-416.
46. Miller, A. H., & MacKuen, M. (1979). Learning about the candidates: The 1976 presidential debates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 43, 326-346.
47. Morrow, G. R. (1977). Changes in perceptions of Ford and Carter following the first presidential debate. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 45, 423-429.
48. Mulder, R. D. (1978). The political effects of the Carter-Ford debate: An experimental analysis. Sociological Focus, 11, 33-45.
49. Nie, N. H., Verba, S., & Petrocik, J. R. (1999). The changing American voter (enlarged ed.). San Jose, CA: toExcel, in arrangement with Harvard University Press.
50. Patterson, M. L., Churchill, M. E., Burger, G. K., & Powell, J. L. (1992). Verbal and nonverbal modality effects on impressions of political candidates: Analysis from the 1984 presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 59, 231-241.
51. Pfau, M., Cho, J., & Chong, K. (2001). Communication forms in U.S. presidential campaigns: Influences on candidate perceptions and the Democratic process. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 6, 88-105.
52. Pfau, M., & Eveland, W. P. (1994). Debates versus other communication sources: The pattern of information influence. In D. B. Carlin & M. S. McKinney (Eds.), The 1992 presidential debates in focus (pp. 155-173). Westport, CT: Praeger.
53. Pomper, G. M. (1975). Voters' choice: Varieties of American electoral behavior. New York: Dodd, Mead.
54. Rose, D. D., (1976). Citizen uses of the Ford-Carter debates. Journal of Politics, 41, 214-221.
55. Racine Group. (2002). White paper on televised political campaign debates. Argumentation & Advocacy, 38, 199-218.
56. Rutenberg, J. (2000, October 5). The 2000 campaign: The ratings; TV audience for debate is smaller than expected. New York Times, p. A30.
57. Shelley, M. C., & Hwang, H. D. (1991). The mass media and public opinion polls in the 1988 presidential election: Trends, accuracy, consistency, and events. American Politics Quarterly, 19, 59-79.
58. Sigelman, L., & Sigelman, C. K. (1984). Judgments of the Carter-Reagan debate: The eyes of the beholder. Public Opinion Quarterly, 46, 624-628.
59. Simons, H. W., & Leibowitz, K. (1979). Shifts in candidate images. In S. Kraus (Ed.), The great debates: Carter vs. Ford, 1976 (pp. 398-404). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
60. Steeper, F. T. (1978). Public response to Gerald Ford's statements on Eastern Europe in the second debate. In G. F. Bishop, R. G. Meadow, & M. Jackson-Beeck (Eds.), The presidential debates: Media, electoral, and policy perspectives (pp. 81-101). New York: Praeger.
61. Tannenbaum, P. H., Greenberg, B. S., & Silverman, F. R. (1962). Candidate images. In S. Kraus (Ed.), The great debates: Background, perspective, effects (pp. 271-288). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
62. Vancil, D. L., & Pendell, S. D. (1984). Winning presidential debates: An analysis of criteria influencing audience response. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 48, 62-74.
63. Weaver, D., & Drew, D. (1995). Voter learning in the 1992 Presidential election: Did the "nontraditional" media and debates matter? Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 72, 7-17.
64. Weaver, D., & Drew, D. (2001). Voter learning and interest in the 2000 Presidential election: Did the media matter. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 787-798.
65. Weaver, D., Drew, D., & Wu, W. (1998). Voter interest and participation in the 1996 presidential election: Did the debates matter? In T. J. Johnson, C. E. Hays, & S. P. Hays (Eds.), Engaging the public: How government and the media can reinvigorate American democracy (pp. 87-95). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
66. Yawn, M., & Beatty, B. (2000). Debate-induced opinion change: What matters? American Politics Quarterly, 28, 270-285.
67. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
68. Zhu, J. H., Milavsky, J. R., & Biswas, R. (1994). Do televised debates affect image perception more than issue knowledge? A study of the first 1992 Presidential debate. Human Communication Research, 20, 302-333.